PROGRESS ON CRAFTON’S QEIS (QEIS)
2015 – 2016 Report Showing Progress from 2012-2013 to 2014-2015
Prepared by Keith Wurtz
July 16, 2015
RRN: 1,172
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs
2015 – 2016 Report Showing Progress from 2012-2013 to 2014-2015
Intr od uc ti on
The CHC Educational Master Planning Committee (EMPC), with the full participation of
representatives of the Academic Senate, Classified Senate, Student Senate, and management
team, have developed a set of institutional Quantitative Effectiveness Indicators (QEIs) to
facilitate institutional planning. Institutional QEIs, taken together, are intended to present a
reasonably broad and accurate picture of overall institutional effectiveness from a quantitative
perspective. Data on QEIs are gathered annually, starting with a baseline period, and the results
indicate whether the College has made progress toward the improvement goal for each
measure. The QEIs comprise one section of the Educational Master Plan (EMP), and progress
toward the Goals of that Plan will raise the College’s performance level on many of the QEIs. The
subsequent pages illustrate the 2014 – 2015 annual update to the QEIs along with historical
patterns for three years, baselines, targets, and possible disproportionate impact by gender, age,
ethnicity, and economically disadvantaged status. Institutional QEIs, taken together, are intended
to present a reasonably broad and accurate picture of overall institutional effectiveness from a
quantitative perspective. The QEIs comprise one section of the Educational Master Plan (EMP).
Progress toward the Goals of the EMP will inherently raise the College’s performance level on
many of the QEIs.
Su mm ar y of Res ults ( s ee T abl e 1)
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 7/16/2015
In 2 0 1 4 – 2 0 1 5 th e Q E I Tar g ets w er e e xc e e ded i n th e Fo ll o win g Ar eas
 Course Success Rate
o Overall Course Success Rate
o CT Course Success Rate
o Transfer Course Success Rate
o Developmental Course Success Rate
 Course (i.e. Formally Retention) Completion Rate
o Overall Course Completion Rate
o CTE Completion Rate
o Transfer Completion Rate
o Developmental Completion Rate
 Fall to Fall Retention Rate (i.e. Formally Persistence)
 Number of Degrees and Certificates
 Performance after Transfer (CSU GPA)
 Outcomes Assessment Rate
 Employee Satisfaction
Cr af to n is w or kin g on a chi e vi ng th e Q EI T ar ge ts in th e F oll o wi ng Ar eas
 Transfer Rate
 Transfer Readiness Rate
 Job Placement Rate
 Instructional Productivity (WSCH/FTEF Ratio)
1
Dis pr op or t io nat e I mp act
Of the 11 QEI outcome areas, disproportionate impact was only indicated in four areas


Fall-to-Fall Retention Rate
Transfer Readiness Rate
Fall-to-Fall Retention Rate (i.e. formally persistence)

Students 25 years old or older had a statistically significant (p < .001) and substantially (ES
>= .34) lower fall-to-fall retention rate (30%) than students in the fall cohort (47%).
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 07/16/2015
Transfer Readiness Rate
 African American students were statistically significantly (p = .023) and substantially (ES
= .25) less likely to be transfer ready (6%) than students in the three-year transfer cohort
(15%)
2
Table 1: 2014 – 2015 Progress on Crafton’s Quantit ative Effectiveness
Indicators (QEIs) by Age, Gender, Ethnicity, and Income and whether the Target
was met.
Disproportionate Impact
QEI Outcome
QEI
12-13
13-14
14-15
Age
Gender
Race
Income
CHC
13-14
Target
Exceeded
CHC 13-14
Target
Successful Course
1
73.7
73.2
73.6
No
No
No
No
73.4
Yes
Completion Rate
CTE Courses
1
79.3
79.7
81.5
No
No
No
No
80.0
Yes
Transfer Courses
1
73.6
72.8
73.4
No
No
No
No
73.4
Yes
Developmental
1
62.0
58.0
66.7
No
No
No
No
63.0
Yes
Courses
Course Completion
2
91.5
91.0
91.1
No
No
No
No
88.0
Yes
(i.e. Retention) Rate
CTE Courses
2
92.6
92.7
93.4
No
No
No
No
92.0
Yes
Transfer Courses
2
90.9
90.8
90.5
No
No
No
No
88.0
Yes
Developmental
2
90.3
90.1
91.8
No
No
No
No
85.1
Yes
Courses
Fall to Fall Retention
Rate (i.e.
3
45.4
47.4
46.9**
25-49
No
No
No
45.9
Yes
persistence)*
Number of Degrees
4
731
824
935
800
and Certificates
Not
Degrees
4
441
508
617
Available
NA
NA
Certificates
4
290
316
318
NA
NA
Transfer Rate
5
14.2
5.8
7.4
No
No
No
No
13.3
No
Transfer Readiness
African
6
11.4
14.6
14.2
No
No
No
17.1
No
Rate
American
Performance After
7
3.19
3.15
3.13
3.00
Yes
Transfer (CSU GPA)
Job Placement Rate
8
84.2
75.9
73.0
90.0
No
Instructional
Productivity
9
527.77
476.03 465.44
Not
500
No
(WSCH/FTEF Ratio)
Available
Outcomes
10
64.8%
73.0%
96.3%
70%
Yes
Assessment Rate
Employee
11
80.9%
70.3%
70%
Yes
Satisfaction
*Originally this measure was the ARCC fall to fall retention rate, which is no longer provided by the Chancellor’s Office. This measure is now calculated by the
CHC OIERP.
**46.9% is the Fall 2013 to Fall 2014 retention rate.
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 7/16/2015
Met ho do lo gy
The progress on all 11 QEIs is examined on the following pages. Each QEI includes a three-year
trend in both table and graph form and the progress Crafton has made toward reaching each
target. Disproportionate impact was examined for each QEI by ethnicity, age, gender, and
income where appropriate. Disproportionate impact occurs when students from a particular age,
gender, ethnicity group, or income level were statistically significantly and substantially less likely to
achieve the outcome when compared to the entire group. When examining disproportionate
impact, groups were not identified as indicating a difference if the difference was not statistically
significant (p < .05) and substantially different (ES >= .20).
3
QE I 1 – C our s e Su c ce s s R at e
The 73.4 overall and transfer course success rate of 73.4% was achieved in both the 2012-2013
academic year and the most recent 2014-2015 academic year. Moreover, the targets for both
the CTE and developmental course success rates have been achieved as well.
Success
CTE
Transfer
Dev./Basic
Overall
Baseline*
%
80.9
69.9
58.2
70.5
#
3,614
16,937
2,804
23,839
2012-13
N
4,557
22,998
4,525
32,356
%
79.3
73.6
62.0
73.7
2013-2014
#
N
3,177
3,984
15,967 21,946
1,736
2,994
24,610 33,608
%
79.7
72.8
58.0
73.2
2014-2015
#
N
3,858
4,736
20,088 27,358
3,799
5,692
26,594 36,141
%
81.5
73.4
66.7
73.6
Target
80.0%
73.4%
63.0%
73.4%
*The baseline was based on the five-year totals from 2004-2005 to 2008-2009.
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
CTE (Maintain 80%)
Overall (Target (73.4%)
40.0%
Baseline
09-10
10-11
Transfer (Target 73.4%)
Developmental (Target 63.0%)
11-12
12-13
13-14 (Target)
14-15
Note: The overall success rate is defined as the number of A, B, C, or CR/P grades divided by the total number of grades
on record (GOR; A, B, C, D, F, CR/P, NC/NP, W or I). The total number of GOR represents the number of students enrolled at
census. The Developmental/Basic Skills Course Success Rate refers to the success rate in courses coded for state reporting
purposes as basic skills, or courses in math, reading, or English considered to be developmental courses. The Transfer
Course Success Rate refers to the success rate in courses coded for state reporting purposes as transferable to both UC
and CSU or transferable to CSU only. Courses identified by CHC as transferable to some but not all CSUs and UCs are also
included. The Career Technical Education (CTE) Course Success Rate refers to the success rate in courses coded for state
reporting purposes as advanced occupational or clearly occupational, and as credit – degree applicable or credit – not
degree applicable. A limitation to the CTE success rate is that the Fire, Paramedic, and EMT programs use 80% to indicate
that a student has passed the course, not 70%. This may result in lower percent of successful students.
QEI 1 – CTE, Developmental, Transfer, and Overall Course Success Rate s by
Age, Gender, Ethnicity, and Economically Disadvantaged Status
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 07/16/2015
Tables 1A – 1P illustrate the CTE, developmental, transfer, and overall success rates by age,
gender, ethnicity, and economically disadvantaged status. Disproportionate impact was not
indicated for age, gender, ethnicity or income.
4
Table 1A: CTE Course Success Rate by Age.
Term Age
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
19 or younger
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-49
50 and above
Total
CTE Success Rate
Not Successful
Successful
237
723
24.7%
75.3%
397
1,652
19.4%
80.6%
121
665
15.4%
84.6%
49
301
14.0%
86.0%
20
202
9.0%
91.0%
24
203
10.6%
89.4%
30
112
21.1%
78.9%
878
3,858
18.5%
81.5%
Total
960
100.0%
2,049
100.0%
786
100.0%
350
100.0%
222
100.0%
227
100.0%
142
100.0%
4,736
100.0%
Table 1B: CTE Course Success Rate by Gender.
Gender
Female
Male
Missing
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
CTE Success Rate
Not Successful
Successful
388
1,514
20.4%
79.6%
485
2,328
17.2%
82.8%
5
16
23.8%
76.2%
878
3,858
18.5%
81.5%
Total
1,902
100.0%
2,813
100.0%
21
100.0%
4,736
100.0%
Table 1C: CTE Course Success Rate by Ethnicity.
Ethnicity
Asian
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 7/16/2015
African American
Hispanic
Native American
Caucasian
Missing
Total
5
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
CTE Success Rate
Not Successful
Successful
28
179
13.5%
86.5%
84
339
19.9%
80.1%
438
1,539
22.2%
77.8%
16
79
16.8%
83.2%
309
1,707
15.3%
84.7%
3
15
16.7%
83.3%
878
3,858
18.5%
81.5%
Total
207
100.0%
423
100.0%
1,977
100.0%
95
100.0%
2,016
100.0%
18
100.0%
4,736
100.0%
81.5% * 80% = 65.2%
Table 1D: CTE Course Success Rate by Economically Disadvantaged Status.
Economically
Disadvantaged (ED)
#
Not Identified
as ED
%
#
Economically
Disadvantaged
%
#
Total
%
CTE Success Rate
Not Successful
Successful
317
1,675
15.9%
84.1%
561
2,183
20.4%
79.6%
878
3,858
18.5%
81.5%
Total
1,992
100.0%
2,744
100.0%
4,736
100.0%
81.5% * 80% = 65.2%
Table 1E: Transfer Course Success Rate by Age.
Age
19 or younger
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-49
50 and above
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Transfer Success Rate
Not Successful
Successful
2,403
6,370
27.4%
72.6%
3,389
8,910
27.6%
72.4%
821
2,352
25.9%
74.1%
288
1,003
22.3%
77.7%
162
527
23.5%
76.5%
129
587
18.0%
82.0%
78
338
18.8%
81.3%
7,270
20,087
26.6%
73.4%
Total
8,773
100.0%
12,299
100.0%
3,173
100.0%
1,291
100.0%
689
100.0%
716
100.0%
416
100.0%
27,357
100.0%
73.4% * 80% = 58.7%
Table 1F: Transfer Course Success Rate by Gender.
Female
Male
Missing
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Transfer Success Rate
Not Successful
Successful
3,851
10,962
26.0%
74.0%
3,400
9,106
27.2%
72.8%
19
20
48.7%
51.3%
7,270
20,088
26.6%
73.4%
Total
14,813
100.0%
12,506
100.0%
39
100.0%
27,358
100.0%
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 07/16/2015
Gender
6
Table 1G: Transfer Course Success Rate by Ethnicity.
Ethnicity
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Asian
African American
Hispanic
Native American
Caucasian
Missing
Total
Success Rate
Not Successful
Successful
369
1,298
22.1%
77.9%
643
1,462
30.5%
69.5%
3,583
8,328
30.1%
69.9%
142
446
24.1%
75.9%
2,512
8,502
22.8%
77.2%
21
52
28.8%
71.2%
7270
20,088
26.6%
73.4%
Total
1,667
100.0%
2,105
100.0%
11,911
100.0%
588
100.0%
11,014
100.0%
73
100.0%
27,358
100.0%
73.4% * 80% = 58.7%
Table 1H: Transfer Course Success Rate by Economically Disadvantaged Status.
Economically
Disadvantaged (ED)
#
Not Identified
as ED
%
#
Economically
Disadvantaged
%
#
Total
%
Transfer Success Rate
Not Successful
Successful
2,602
8,088
24.3%
75.7%
4,668
12,000
28.0%
72.0%
7,270
20,088
26.6%
73.4%
Total
10,690
100.0%
16,668
100.0%
27,358
100.0%
Table 1I: Developmental Course Success Rate by Age.
Age
19 or younger
20-24
25-29
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 7/16/2015
30-34
35-39
40-49
50 and above
Total
7
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Developmental Success Rate
Not Successful
Successful
995
2,068
32.5%
67.5%
617
1,043
37.2%
62.8%
106
329
24.4%
75.6%
71
134
34.6%
65.4%
41
82
33.3%
66.7%
33
103
24.3%
75.7%
30
40
42.9%
57.1%
1,893
3,799
33.3%
66.7%
Total
3,063
100.0%
1,660
100.0%
435
100.0%
205
100.0%
123
100.0%
136
100.0%
70
100.0%
5,692
100.0%
66.7% * 80% = 53.4%
Table 1J: Developmental Course Success Rate by Gender.
Gender
Female
Male
Missing
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Developmental Success Rate
Not Successful
Successful
897
2,164
29.3%
70.7%
994
1,630
37.9%
62.1%
2
5
28.6%
71.4%
1,893
3,799
33.3%
66.7%
Total
3,061
100.0%
2,624
100.0%
7
100.0%
5,692
100.0%
66.7% * 80% = 53.4%
Table 1K: Developmental Course Success Rate by Ethnicity.
Ethnicity
Asian
African American
Hispanic
Native American
Caucasian
Missing
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Developmental Success Rate
Not Successful
Successful
47
172
21.5%
78.5%
161
291
35.6%
64.4%
1,067
1,994
34.9%
65.1%
44
72
37.9%
62.1%
566
1,261
31.0%
69.0%
8
9
47.1%
52.9%
1893
3,799
33.3%
66.7%
Total
219
100.0%
452
100.0%
3,061
100.0%
116
100.0%
1,827
100.0%
17
100.0%
5,692
100.0%
Table 1L: Developmental Course Success Rate by Economically Disadvantaged Status.
Developmental Success Rate
Not Successful
Successful
523
1,115
31.9%
68.1%
1,370
2,684
33.8%
66.2%
1,893
3,799
33.3%
66.7%
Total
1,638
100.0%
4,054
100.0%
5,692
100.0%
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 07/16/2015
Economically
Disadvantaged (ED)
#
Not Identified
as ED
%
#
Economically
Disadvantaged
%
#
Total
%
8
Table 1M: Overall Course Success Rate by Age.
Age
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
19 or younger
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-49
50 and above
Total
Overall Success Rate
Not Successful
Successful
3,518
9,083
27.9%
72.1%
4,148
10,944
27.5%
72.5%
975
3,122
23.8%
76.2%
384
1,367
21.9%
78.1%
212
766
21.7%
78.3%
183
855
17.6%
82.4%
127
456
21.8%
78.2%
9,547
26,593
26.4%
73.6%
Total
12,601
100.0%
15,092
100.0%
4,097
100.0%
1,751
100.0%
978
100.0%
1,038
100.0%
583
100.0%
36,140
100.0%
Table 1N: Overall Course Success Rate by Gender.
Gender
Female
Male
Missing
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Overall Success Rate
Not Successful
Successful
4,897
14,262
25.6%
74.4%
4,628
12,293
27.4%
72.6%
22
39
36.1%
63.9%
9,547
26,594
26.4%
73.6%
Total
19,159
100.0%
16,921
100.0%
61
100.0%
36,141
100.0%
Table 1O: Overall Course Success Rate by Ethnicity.
Ethnicity
Asian
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 7/16/2015
African American
Hispanic
Native American
Caucasian
Missing
Total
9
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Overall Success Rate
Not Successful
Successful
430
1,583
21.4%
78.6%
844
2,049
29.2%
70.8%
4843
11,459
29.7%
70.3%
189
577
24.7%
75.3%
3,212
10,862
22.8%
77.2%
29
64
31.2%
68.8%
9,547
26,594
26.4%
73.6%
Total
2,013
100.0%
2,893
100.0%
16,302
100.0%
766
100.0%
14,074
100.0%
93
100.0%
36,141
100.0%
73.6% * 80% = 58.9%
Table 1P: Overall Success Rate by Economically Disadvantaged Status.
Overall Success Rate
Not Successful
Successful
3,243
10,178
24.2%
75.8%
6,304
16,416
27.7%
72.3%
9,547
26,594
26.4%
73.6%
Total
13,421
100.0%
22,720
100.0%
36,141
100.0%
73.6% * 80% = 58.9%
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 07/16/2015
Economically
Disadvantaged (ED)
#
Not Identified
as ED
%
#
Economically
Disadvantaged
%
#
Total
%
10
QE I 2 – C our s e Co mp let io n Ra te ( i . e. for m all y r et en ti on)
In the last three years the QEI targets for the overall course completion (i.e. formally retention)
rates have been consistently maintained for the CTE, transfer, developmental, and overall course
completion rates.
Completion
CTE
Transfer
Dev./Basic
Overall
Baseline*
92.3
86.0
81.4
86.6
#
4,221
20,907
4,086
29,619
2012-13
N
4,557
22,998
4,525
32,356
%
92.6
90.9
90.3
91.5
#
3,693
19,935
2,698
30,628
2013-14
N
3,984
21,946
2,994
33,608
%
92.7
90.8
90.1
91.1
#
4,422
24,762
5,225
32,911
2014-15
N
4,736
27,358
5,692
36,141
%
93.4
90.5
91.8
91.1
Target
92.0%
88.0%
85.1%
88.0%
* The baseline was based on the five-year totals from 2004-2005 to 2008-2009.
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
CTE (Maintain 92%)
Transfer (Target 88%)
Overall (Target (88%)
Developmental (Target 85.1%)
70.0%
Baseline
09-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
13-14 (Target)
14-15
Note: The overall completion rate is defined as the number of A, B, C, D, F, CR/P, NC/NP, or I grades divided by the total
number of grades on record (GOR; A, B, C, D, F, CR/P, NC/NP, W or I). The total number of GOR represents the number of
students enrolled at census. The Developmental/Basic Skills Course Completion Rate refers to the completion rate in
courses coded for state reporting purposes as basic skills, or courses in math, reading, or English considered to be
developmental courses. The Transfer Course Completion Rate refers to the completion rate in courses coded for state
reporting purposes as transferable to both UC and CSU or transferable to CSU only. Courses identified by CHC as
transferable to some but not all CSUs and UCs are also included. The Career Technical Education (CTE) Course Completion
Rate refers to the completion rate in courses coded for state reporting purposes as advanced occupational or clearly
occupational, and as credit – degree applicable or credit – not degree applicable.
QEI 2 – CTE, Developmental, Transfer, and Overall Course Completion Rates by
Age, Gender, Ethnicity, and Economically Disadvantaged Status
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 7/16/2015
Tables 2A – 2P illustrate the CTE, developmental, transfer, and overall completion rates by age,
gender, ethnicity, and economically disadvantaged status. Disproportionate impact was not
indicated for age, gender, ethnicity or income.
11
Table 2A: CTE Course Completion Rate by Age.
Age
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
19 or younger
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-49
50 and above
Total
CTE Completion Rate
Did Not Complete Completed
73
887
7.6%
92.4%
139
1,910
6.8%
93.2%
44
742
5.6%
94.4%
18
332
5.1%
94.9%
9
213
4.1%
95.9%
10
217
4.4%
95.6%
21
121
14.8%
85.2%
314
4,422
6.6%
93.4%
Total
960
100.0%
2,049
100.0%
786
100.0%
350
100.0%
222
100.0%
227
100.0%
142
100.0%
4,736
100.0%
93.4% * 80% = 74.7%
Table 2B: CTE Course Completion Rate by Gender.
Gender
Female
Male
Missing
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
CTE Completion Rate
Did Not Complete
Completed
136
1,766
7.2%
92.8%
176
2,637
6.3%
93.7%
2
19
9.5%
90.5%
314
4,,422
6.6%
93.4%
Total
1,902
100.0%
2,813
100.0%
21
100.0%
4,736
100.0%
Table 2C: CTE Course Completion Rate by Ethnicity.
African American
Hispanic
Native American
Caucasian
Missing
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Total
207
100.0%
423
100.0%
1,977
100.0%
95
100.0%
2,016
100.0%
18
100.0%
4,736
100.0%
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 07/16/2015
Asian
CTE Completion Rate
Did Not Complete Completed
8
199
3.9%
96.1%
28
395
6.6%
93.4%
154
1,823
7.8%
92.2%
6
89
6.3%
93.7%
117
1,899
5.8%
94.2%
1
17
5.6%
94.4%
314
4,422
6.6%
93.4%
12
Table 2D: CTE Course Completion Rate by Economically Disadvantaged Status.
Economically
Disadvantaged (ED)
#
Not Identified
as ED
%
#
Economically
Disadvantaged
%
#
Total
%
Developmental Completion Rate
Did Not Complete
Completed
115
1,877
5.8%
94.2%
199
2,545
7.3%
92.7%
314
4,422
6.6%
93.4%
Total
1,992
100.0%
2,744
100.0%
4,736
100.0%
93.4% * 80% = 74.7%
Table 2E: Transfer Course Completion Rate by Age.
Age
19 or younger
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-49
50 and above
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Transfer Completion Rate
Did Not Complete Completed
676
8,097
7.7%
92.3%
1,229
11,070
10.0%
90.0%
362
2,811
11.4%
88.6%
129
1,162
10.0%
90.0%
80
609
11.6%
88.4%
77
639
10.8%
89.2%
43
373
10.3%
89.7%
2,596
24,761
9.5%
90.5%
Total
8,773
100.0%
12,299
100.0%
3,173
100.0%
1,291
100.0%
689
100.0%
716
100.0%
416
100.0%
27,357
100.0%
Table 2F: Transfer Course Completion Rate by Gender.
Female
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 7/16/2015
Male
Missing
Total
13
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Transfer Completion Rate
Did Not Complete Completed
1,403
13,410
9.5%
90.5%
1,187
11,319
9.5%
90.5%
6
33
15.4%
84.6%
2,596
24,762
9.5%
90.5%
Total
14,813
100.0%
12,506
100.0%
39
100.0%
27,358
100.0%
90.5% * 80% = 72.4%
Table 2G: Transfer Course Completion Rate by Ethnicity.
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Asian
African American
Hispanic
Native American
Caucasian
Missing
Total
Transfer Completion Rate
Did Not Complete Completed
129
1,538
7.7%
92.3%
226
1,879
10.7%
89.3%
1175
10,736
9.9%
90.1%
51
537
8.7%
91.3%
1008
10,006
9.2%
90.8%
7
66
9.6%
90.4%
2596
24,762
9.5%
90.5%
Total
1,667
100.0%
2,105
100.0%
11,911
100.0%
588
100.0%
11,014
100.0%
73
100.0%
27,358
100.0%
90.5% * 80% = 72.4%
Table 2H: Transfer Course Completion Rate by Economically Disadvantaged Status.
Economically
Disadvantaged (ED)
#
Not Identified
as ED
%
#
Economically
Disadvantaged
%
#
Total
%
Developmental Completion Rate
Did Not Complete
Completed
900
9,790
8.4%
91.6%
1,696
14,972
10.2%
89.8%
2,596
24,762
9.5%
90.5%
Total
10,690
100.0%
16,668
100.0%
27,358
100.0%
Table 2I: Developmental Course Completion Rate by Age.
19 or younger
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-49
50 and above
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Developmental Completion Rate
Did Not Complete
Completed
183
2,880
6.0%
94.0%
177
1,483
10.7%
89.3%
33
402
7.6%
92.4%
27
178
13.2%
86.8%
18
105
14.6%
85.4%
15
121
11.0%
89.0%
14
56
20.0%
80.0%
467
5,225
8.2%
91.8%
Total
3,063
100.0%
1,660
100.0%
435
100.0%
205
100.0%
123
100.0%
136
100.0%
70
100.0%
5,692
100.0%
91.8% * 80% = 73.4%
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 07/16/2015
Age
14
Table 2J: Developmental Course Completion Rate by Gender.
Gender
Female
Male
Missing
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Developmental Completion Rate
Did Not Complete
Completed
223
2,838
7.3%
92.7%
244
2,380
9.3%
90.7%
0
7
0.0%
100.0%
467
5,225
8.2%
91.8%
Total
3,061
100.0%
2,624
100.0%
7
100.0%
5,692
100.0%
91.8% * 80% = 73.4%
Table 2K: Developmental Course Completion Rate by Ethnicity.
Asian
African American
Hispanic
Native American
Caucasian
Missing
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Developmental Completion Rate
Did Not Complete
Completed
9
210
4.1%
95.9%
43
409
9.5%
90.5%
240
2,821
7.8%
92.2%
9
107
7.8%
92.2%
164
1,663
9.0%
91.0%
2
15
11.8%
88.2%
467
5,225
8.2%
91.8%
Total
219
100.0%
452
100.0%
3,061
100.0%
116
100.0%
1,827
100.0%
17
100.0%
5,692
100.0%
Table 2L: Developmental Course Completion Rate by Economically Disadvantaged Status.
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 7/16/2015
Economically
Disadvantaged (ED)
#
Not Identified
as ED
%
#
Economically
Disadvantaged
%
#
Total
%
15
Developmental Completion Rate
Did Not Complete
Completed
129
1,509
7.9%
92.1%
338
3,716
8.3%
91.7%
467
5,225
8.2%
91.8%
Total
1,638
100.0%
4,054
100.0%
5,692
100.0%
Table 2M: Overall Course Completion Rate by Age.
Age
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
19 or younger
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-49
50 and above
Total
Overall Completion Rate
Did Not Complete Completed
905
11,696
7.2%
92.8%
1,469
13,623
9.7%
90.3%
415
3,682
10.1%
89.9%
167
1,584
9.5%
90.5%
102
876
10.4%
89.6%
100
938
9.6%
90.4%
72
511
12.3%
87.7%
3,230
32,910
8.9%
91.1%
Total
12,601
100.0%
15,092
100.0%
4,097
100.0%
1,751
100.0%
978
100.0%
1,038
100.0%
583
100.0%
36,140
100.0%
91.1% * 80% = 72.9%
Table 2N: Overall Course Completion Rate by Gender.
Gender
Female
Male
Missing
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Overall Completion Rate
Did Not Complete Completed
1,695
17,464
8.8%
91.2%
1,528
15,393
9.0%
91.0%
7
54
11.5%
88.5%
3,230
32,911
8.9%
91.1%
Total
19,159
100.0%
16,921
100.0%
61
100.0%
36,141
100.0%
Table 2O: Overall Course Completion Rate by Ethnicity.
African American
Hispanic
Native American
Caucasian
Missing
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Total
2,013
100.0%
2,893
100.0%
16,302
100.0%
766
100.0%
14,074
100.0%
93
100.0%
36,141
100.0%
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 07/16/2015
Asian
Overall Completion Rate
Did Not Complete Completed
142
1,871
7.1%
92.9%
280
2,613
9.7%
90.3%
1,507
14,795
9.2%
90.8%
62
704
8.1%
91.9%
1,230
12,844
8.7%
91.3%
9
84
9.7%
90.3%
3,230
32,911
8.9%
91.1%
16
Table 2P: Overall Course Completion Rate by Economically Disadvantaged Status.
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 7/16/2015
Economically
Disadvantaged (ED)
#
Not Identified
as ED
%
#
Economically
Disadvantaged
%
#
Total
%
17
Overall Completion Rate
Did Not Complete
Completed
1,084
12,337
8.1%
91.9%
2,146
20,574
9.4%
90.6%
3,230
32,911
8.9%
91.1%
Total
13,421
100.0%
22,720
100.0%
36,141
100.0%
91.1% * 80% = 72.9%
QE I 3 – R et en ti on ( i .e . For ma ll y P er s is te nc e)
The fall to fall retention rate QEI target (45.9%) was reached in Fall 2013 (47.4%) and maintained in
Fall 2014 (46.9%).
Fall to Fall Retention
Fall 2008 to Fall 2009(Baseline)
Fall 2009 to Fall 2010
Fall 2010 to Fall 2011
Fall 2011 to Fall 2012
Fall 2012 to Fall 2013
Fall 2013 to Fall 2014
#
771
829
683
682
626
769
Retention
N
1,883
1,865
1,574
1,502
1,320
1,641
%
40.9
44.5
43.4
45.4
47.4
46.9
13-14
Target
45.9%
45.9%
45.9%
45.9%
45.9%
45.9%
Target
Met
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
60.0%
50.0%
40.9%
44.5%
43.4%
45.4%
47.4%
46.9%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
Fall to Fall Retention (Target 45.9%)
10.0%
0.0%
FA08-FA09
FA09-FA10
FA10-FA11
FA11-FA12
FA12-FA13 (Target)
FA13-FA14
Note: The Fall to Fall Retention Rate refers to the percent of first-time Crafton students who earned a GOR in a credit course
in the fall term and who returned and earned a GOR in a credit course the subsequent fall term at Crafton Hills College.
When looking at the retention rate, disproportionate impact was not indicated for gender,
ethnicity, or economically disadvantaged status. However, disproportionate impact was
indicated when looking at age. Specifically, when looking at age…
 Students 25 – 29 years old had a statistically significant (p < .001) and substantially (ES =
.38) lower retention rate (28%) then the overall retention rate (47%)
 Students 30 – 34 years old had a statistically significant (p < .05) and substantially (ES =
.21) lower retention rate (36%) then the overall retention rate (47%)
 Students 35 – 39 years old had a statistically significant (p < .005) and substantially (ES =
.43) lower retention rate (26%) then the overall retention rate (47%)
 Students 40 – 49 years old had a statistically significant (p < .005) and substantially (ES =
.48) lower retention rate (23%) then the overall retention rate (47%)
Students who are 25 – 49 years old may be less likely to be retained because they are earning
degrees, certificates, transferring, and/or working.
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 07/16/2015
QEI 3 – Retention Rate (i.e. Formally Persistence) by Age, Gender, Ethnicity,
and Economically Disadvantaged Status
18
Table 3A: Retention Rate (i.e. Formally Persistence) by Age.
Age
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
19 or younger
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-49
50 and above
Total
Fall to Fall Retention
Not Retained
Retained
405
520
43.8%
56.2%
239
152
61.1%
38.9%
102
40
71.8%
28.2%
53
30
63.9%
36.1%
29
10
74.4%
25.6%
27
8
77.1%
22.9%
17
9
65.4%
34.6%
872
769
53.1%
46.9%
Total
925
100.0%
391
100.0%
142
100.0%
83
100.0%
39
100.0%
35
100.0%
26
100.0%
1,641
100.0%
Table 3B: Retention Rate (i.e. Formally Persistence) by Gender.
Gender
Female
Male
Missing
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Fall to Fall Retention
Not Retained
Retained
428
398
51.8%
48.2%
443
370
54.5%
45.5%
1
1
50.0%
50.0%
872
769
53.1%
46.9%
Total
826
100.0%
813
100.0%
2
100.0%
1,641
100.0%
Table 3C: Retention Rate (i.e. Formally Persistence) by Ethnicity.
Ethnicity
Asian
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 7/16/2015
African American
Hispanic
Native American
Caucasian
Missing
Total
19
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Fall to Fall Retention
Not Retained
Retained
54
45
54.5%
45.5%
93
61
60.4%
39.6%
383
348
52.4%
47.6%
12
22
35.3%
64.7%
328
290
53.1%
46.9%
2
3
40.0%
60.0%
872
769
53.1%
46.9%
Total
99
100.0%
154
100.0%
731
100.0%
34
100.0%
618
100.0%
5
100.0%
1641
100.0%
The fall to fall retention rate of
students 25 years old or older is
less than 37.5% indicating that
these students are less likely to
be retained from fall to fall than
other students.
46.9% * 80% = 37.5%
Table 3D: Retention Rate (i.e. Formally Persistence) by Economically Disadvantaged Status.
Overall Completion Rate
Did Not Complete
Completed
464
301
60.7%
39.3%
408
468
46.6%
53.4%
872
769
53.1%
46.9%
Total
765
100.0%
876
100.0%
1,641
100.0%
46.9% * 80% = 37.5%
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 07/16/2015
Economically
Disadvantaged (ED)
#
Not Identified
as ED
%
#
Economically
Disadvantaged
%
#
Total
%
20
QE I 4 – Nu mb er o f D e gr e es and C er t if ic at es
In the last four academic years the degrees and certificates earned has consistently increased
from 634 in 2011 – 2012 to 935 in 2014 – 2015, an increase of 301 (47%) degrees and certificates. In
addition, the QEI target was met in 2013 – 2014 and maintained in 2014 – 2015.
Academic Year
2008 – 2009 (Baseline)
2009 – 2010
2010 – 2011
2011 – 2012
2012 – 2013
2013 – 2014
2014 – 2015
1,200
Certificates
475
364
346
302
290
316
318
Total
801
686
706
634
731
824
935
13-14
Target
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
Target
Met
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Total (Actual - Target = 800)
Degrees (Actual)
Certificates (Actual)
1,000
803
Number of Awards
Degrees
326
322
360
332
441
508
617
935
800
686
629
611
824
801
731
706
634
617
600
409
461
400
325
342
200
508
475
304
326
441
364
360
322
346
332
302
290
316
11-12
12-13
13-14
(Target)
318
202
0
05-06
06-07
07-08
08-09
09-10
10-11
Academic Year
14-15
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 7/16/2015
Note: QEI 4 refers to the number of degrees and certificates earned by Crafton students and include certificates that are
less than 18 units. Disproportionate impact was not examined because a methodologically sound comparison group
could not be identified.
21
QE I 5 – Thr e e- Y ear Fi r s t -Ti m e Cr a ft on S t ud ent Tr ans fer Rat e
In the last four cohort years the three-year transfer rate has fluctuated from 6 to 14%. The QEI
target is 13.3% and the most recent three-year transfer rate is 7.4%.
5-Year Average
Three-Year
Transfer
Rate
#
N
%
446
4,446
10.0
2010-11 to
2012-13
#
N
%
153
1,075
14.2
2011-12 to
2013-14
#
N
%
2012-13 to
2014-15
#
N
%
Target
40
45
13.3%
690
5.8
30.0%
0.0%
7.4
Transfer Rate (Target 13.3%)
20.0%
10.0%
608
8.5%
13.2%
9.7%
14.2%
10.0%
5-Year
Average
7.4%
5.8%
07-08 to
09-10
08-09 to
10-11
09-10 to
11-12
10-11 to
12-13
11-12 to
13-14
(Target)
12-13 to
14-15
Note: A limitation to the transfer rate is the difficulty involved in identifying students who first attended college at Crafton
Hills College and who also transferred to a four-year university. The process in identifying first-time college students or
Crafton students who transferred to a four-year university involves combining information from three different databases
(i.e. District, CCCCO, and National Student Clearinghouse) as well matching students on name and birth date while
excluding students with FERPA blocks. The Transfer Rate refers to the percent of first-time college Crafton Hills College (CHC)
transfer students as identified by the CCCCO First File with a minimum of 6 transferable units earned who attempted a
transfer math or English course within three years, and transferred to a four-year university as identified by the CCCCO First
File. A student was counted as a first-time college student if the CCCCO First File identified Crafton as the student’s first
college in the summer, fall, or spring semester of the initial cohort year. The GI03_First2 field in the CCCCO First File identifies
the first term a student was reported at a postsecondary institution. A student’s first term at a postsecondary institution had
to be identified as the summer, fall, or spring semester in the cohort. If this information wasn’t available the student was
excluded from the cohort. A student was counted as earning six transferable units if they earned six transferable units in the
three years of the cohort (e.g.: 2010 – 2011 to 2012 – 2013). A student was counted as attempting a transfer math or English
course if they earned a GOR in any transfer math or English course within the three years of the cohort. A first-time college
CHC transfer student earned their first GOR at Crafton, completed six transferable units within three years, and attempted
a transfer math or English course within three years.
QEI 5 – Three-Year First-Time Crafton Student Transfer Rate by Age, Gender,
Ethnicity, and Economically Disadvantaged Status
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 07/16/2015
Disproportionate impact was not indicated for age, gender, ethnicity, and economically
disadvantaged status.
22
Table 5A: Transfer Rate by Age.
Transferred to 4-Year
Did not transfer
Transferred
501
45
91.8%
8.2%
32
0
100.0%
0.0%
11
0
100.0%
0.0%
3
0
100.0%
0.0%
6
0
100.0%
0.0%
7
0
100.0%
0.0%
3
0
100.0%
0.0%
563
45
92.6%
7.4%
Age
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
19 or younger
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-49
50 and above
Total
Total
546
100.0%
32
100.0%
11
100.0%
3
100.0%
6
100.0%
7
100.0%
3
100.0%
608
100.0%
Table 5B: Transfer Rate by Gender.
Gender
Female
Male
Missing
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Transferred to 4-Year
Did not transfer
Transferred
296
24
92.5%
7.5%
266
21
92.7%
7.3%
1
0
100.0%
0.0%
563
45
92.6%
7.4%
Total
320
100.0%
287
100.0%
1
100.0%
608
100.0%
Table 5C: Transfer Rate by Ethnicity.
Asian
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 7/16/2015
African American
Hispanic
Native American
Caucasian
Total
23
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Transferred to 4-Year
Did not transfer
Transferred
32
3
91.4%
8.6%
45
4
91.8%
8.2%
251
17
93.7%
6.3%
5
1
83.3%
16.7%
230
20
92.0%
8.0%
563
45
92.6%
7.4%
Total
35
100.0%
49
100.0%
268
100.0%
6
100.0%
250
100.0%
608
100.0%
7.4% * 80% = 5.9%
Table 5D: Transfer Rate by Economically Disadvantaged Status.
Overall Completion Rate
Did Not Complete
Completed
305
24
92.7%
7.3%
258
21
92.5%
7.5%
563
45
92.6%
7.4%
Total
329
100.0%
279
100.0%
608
100.0%
7.4% * 80% = 5.9%
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 07/16/2015
Economically
Disadvantaged (ED)
#
Not Identified
as ED
%
#
Economically
Disadvantaged
%
#
Total
%
24
QE I 6 – T hr e e- Y ear F ir s t -Ti m e Cr a ft on S tud ent Tr ans fer Re adi ne s s R at e
In the last three cohort years the three-year transfer readiness rate gradually increased from 11 to
15%, surpassing the baseline of 14%. The QEI target is 17.1%, and in 2014 – 2015 Crafton was at
14.6%. The decrease in the transfer readiness rate from 24% to 11% may have been due to a lack
of available courses preventing students from being able to complete the work necessary to be
transfer ready.
2010-11 to
2012-13
#
N
%
5-Year Average
Three-Year
Transfer
Readiness
Rate
#
N
%
600
4,446
13.5
123
1,075
11.4
2011-12 to
2013-14
#
N
%
2012-13 to
2014-15
#
N
%
Target
98
89
17.1%
690
14.2
608
14.6
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.7%
Transfer Readiness Rate (Target 17.1%)
23.9%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
13.6%
13.5%
11.4%
14.2%
10-11 to
12-13
11-12 to
13-14
14.6%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
5-Year
Average
07-08 to
09-10*
08-09 to
10-11
09-10 to
11-12
12-13 to
14-15
Note: Similar to the transfer rate, a limitation to the transfer readiness rate is the difficulty involved in identifying students
who first attended college at Crafton Hills College and who also transferred to a four-year university. The process in
identifying first-time college students or Crafton students who transferred to a four-year university involves combining
information from three different databases (i.e. District, CCCCO, and National Student Clearinghouse) as well matching
students on name and birth date while excluding students with FERPA blocks. The Transfer Readiness Rate refers to the
percent of first-time college Crafton Hills College (CHC) transfer students as identified by the CCCCO First File with a
minimum of 6 transferable units earned who attempted a transfer math or English course within three years and who are
shown to have completed 60 transferable units with a 2.00 GPA and who have successfully completed transfer level math
and English. Please refer to the description of First-time College CHC Transfer Student described for the Transfer Rate QEI on
the previous page.
QEI 6 – Three-Year First-Time Crafton Student Transfer Readiness Rate by Age,
Gender, and Ethnicity
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 7/16/2015
Disproportionate impact was not indicated for age, gender, or economically disadvantaged
status. However, disproportionate impact was indicated when looking at ethnicity. African
American students had a substantially (ES = .25) lower transfer readiness rate (6%) then the other
students in the cohort (15%), suggesting that African American students are less likely to be transfer
ready than other ethnicities.
25
Table 6A: Transfer Readiness Rate by Age.
Transfer Readiness
No
Yes
466
80
85.3%
14.7%
27
5
84.4%
15.6%
10
1
90.9%
9.1%
2
1
66.7%
33.3%
6
0
100.0%
0.0%
5
2
71.4%
28.6%
3
0
100.0%
0.0%
519
89
85.4%
14.6%
Age
19 or younger
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-49
50 and above
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Total
546
100.0%
32
100.0%
11
100.0%
3
100.0%
6
100.0%
7
100.0%
3
100.0%
608
100.0%
14.6% * 80% = 11.7%
Table 6A: Transfer Readiness Rate by Gender.
Gender
Female
Male
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
Transfer Readiness
No
Yes
274
46
85.6%
14.4%
244
43
85.0%
15.0%
1
0
100.0%
0.0%
Total
320
100.0%
287
100.0%
1
100.0%
Ethnicity
Asian
African American
Hispanic
Native American
Caucasian
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Transfer Readiness
No
Yes
31
4
88.6%
11.4%
46
3
93.9%
6.1%
231
37
86.2%
13.8%
6
0
100.0%
0.0%
205
45
82.0%
18.0%
519
89
85.4%
14.6%
Total
35
100.0%
49
100.0%
268
100.0%
6
100.0%
250
100.0%
608
100.0%
The three-year transfer
readiness rate African
American students is less
than 11.7% indicating
that these students are
less likely to be transferready than other
students. (Note: The
Asian rate was not
statistically significantly
different from the overall
rate.)
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 07/16/2015
Table 6C: Transfer Readiness Rate (i.e. Formally Persistence) by Ethnicity.
26
Table 6D: Transfer Readiness Rate by Economically Disadvantaged Status.
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 7/16/2015
Economically
Disadvantaged (ED)
#
Not Identified
as ED
%
#
Economically
Disadvantaged
%
#
Total
%
27
Overall Completion Rate
Did Not Complete
Completed
285
44
86.6%
13.4%
234
45
83.9%
16.1%
519
89
85.4%
14.6%
Total
329
100.0%
279
100.0%
608
100.0%
14.6% * 80% = 11.7%
QE I 7 – P er f or man c e aft er Tr a ns f er
Crafton continues to sustain the QEI target of a 3.00 CSU GPA. In addition, in the last six years the
CSU GPA of former Crafton students has increased from 3.03 to 3.13, a 3% increase.
4-Year Average
(Baseline)
CSU
GPA
2011 - 2012
2012 – 2013
2013 – 2014
2014 – 2015
CHC
CSU
GPA
Other
CCC CSU
GPA
CHC
CSU
GPA
Other
CCC CSU
GPA
CHC
CSU
GPA
Other
CCC CSU
GPA
CHC
CSU
GPA
Other
CCC CSU
GPA
CHC
CSU
GPA
Other
CCC
CSU
GPA
3.05
2.94
3.14
3.04
3.19
3.05
3.15
3.05
3.13
3.05
Target
3.00
4.00
3.05
3.03
3.12
3.14
3.19
3.15
3.13
4-Year Average
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Year
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
3.00
2.00
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 07/16/2015
Note: CSU GPA of CHC Students after Transfer is a comparison of the grade point average (GPA) earned at a California
State University (CSU) by CHC and other California Community College transfer students who enrolled in a fall term and
were enrolled at the same CSU campus the subsequent fall term. CSU Transfer Students Grade Point Average (GPA) is the
CSU GPA earned for the first academic year enrolled following a fall transfer from CHC or other California Community
College (Source: http://asd.calstate.edu/performance/index.shtml).
28
QE I 8 – P er k in ’s Jo b P l ac em en t Ra te
The 2012 – 2013 to 2013 – 2014 Perkin’s Job Placement Rate was 73%. The decrease in the job
placement rate from 91% in the 2008 – 2009 to 2009 – 2010 cohort to 73% in the 2012 – 2013 to 2013
– 2014 cohort was most likely a result of the down turn in the economy. The QEI target is a 90% job
placement rate and was achieved in the 2008 – 2009 to 2009 – 2010 cohort, but not sustained.
2-Year Total
(Baseline)
Count
Total
Rate
Job
Placement
Rate
100%
90%
80%
70%
767
88.4%
868
2010-2011 to
2011-2012
Count
Total
Rate
88.4
315
387
81.4
2011-2012 to
2012-2013
Count
Total
Rate
290
91.3%
08-09 to 09-10
09-10 to 10-11
75.9
81.4%
76.4%
2-Year Total
382
2012-2013 to
2013-2014
Count
Total
Rate
294
403
73.0
Target
90.0%
75.9%
73.0%
10-11 to 11-12
11-12 to 12-13
12-13 to 13-14
(Target = 90%)
Note: The Perkin’s Job Placement Rate is the percentage of CTE program leavers and completers who did not transfer to a
two or four year institution and were found during one of the four quarters following the cohort year in an Unemployment
Insurance (UI) covered employment (Source: https://misweb.cccco.edu/perkins/Core_Indicator_Reports/Forms_All.aspx).
A limitation of this measure is that the State currently does not have the ability to perform data matches with the adult
education offered apprenticeship programs, the federal government, or the military. In addition, UI covered employment
does include self-employment.
Table 7.10a: QEI 8 – Job Placement Rate by Program for Cohorts ending from 2011–2012 to 2013–
2014.
4 Digit TOP Code / Program
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 7/16/2015
0502 Accounting
0506 Business Management
0702 Computer Information Systems
0799 Other Information Technology
1210 Respiratory Care/Therapy
1225 Radiologic Technology
1250 Emergency Medical Services
1251 Paramedic
1305 CDE
2105 Administration of Justice
2133 Fire Technology
Total Job Placement Rate
2010 to 2012
#
N
JPR
5
13
38.5
11
17
64.7
8
12
66.7
5
9
55.6
20
29
69.0
12
12
100.0
155
183
84.7
23
23
100.0
11
13
84.6
8
10
80.0
57
66
86.4
315 387
81.4
#
6
12
2011 to 2013
N
JPR
14
42.9
21
57.1
20
7
168
21
10
34
13
201
22
19
58.8
53.9
83.6
95.5
52.6
46
290
58
382
79.3
75.9
2012 to 2014
#
N
JPR
75.0
9
12
66.7
14
21
62.5
10
16
61.5
8
13
71.4
5
7
62.5
20
32
90.9
10
11
72.8
131
180
90.9
20
22
65.2
15
23
78.8
52
66
73.0
294
403
Note: “#” refers to the number of students employed in the area specified, “N” refers to the number of students identified in
the cohort, and “JPR” refers to the job placement rate. The 2012 to 2014 report for the 2015-2016 reporting year was
collected July of 2015.
29
QE I 9 – Ins tr uc ti ona l P r odu ct i vit y
The 2014 – 2015 instructional productivity target to maintain a WSCH/FTEF ratio of 500 was reached
in 2009 – 2010, and sustained from 2010 – 2011 to 2012 – 2013. In 2014 – 2015 Crafton’s WSCH/FTEF
ratio was 465. Crafton has been below the 500 WSCH/FTEF target for the last two most recent
years.
5-Year Total
(05-06 to 09-10, Baseline)
WSCH
FTEF
WSCH/FTEF
WSCH/FTEF
Ratio
617,869
WSCH/FTEF
600
500
1,286.03
480.45
559.59
WSCH
124,429
2013-14
FTEF
WSCH/FTEF
261.39
536.75
476.03
WSCH
130,552
2014-15
FTEF
WSCH/FTEF
280.49
Target
465.44
500
527.77
480.45
476.03
465.44
Fall/Spring Total (Maintain 500)
400
5-Year Total
10-11
11-12
12-13
13-14
14-15
Year
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 07/16/2015
Note: The Instructional Productivity measure used for instruction is the Weekly Student Contact Hours (WSCH) per Full Time
Equivalent Faculty (FTEF), also known at CHC as Faculty Load ratio. For this measure, WSCH is defined as the number of
students in a class at census multiplied by the hours of student instruction conducted in that class in a week during a
primary (fall or spring) term of an academic year. As an illustration, in a typical 3-unit course: one student generates 3
WSCH (3 weekly hours * 1 student at census = 3 WSCH), ten students generate 30 WSCH (3 weekly hours * 10 students at
census = 30 WSCH), thirty students generate 90 WSCH (3 weekly hours * 30 students at census = 90 WSCH), and thirty-five
students generate 105 WSCH (3 weekly hours * 35 students at census = 105 WSCH). FTEF refers to the load factor associated
with each section assignment for an instructor. For example, typically one 3-unit fall section that meets 3 hours a week
represents a load factor of .20 or 20%. A full-time load in one primary term is considered to be 1 FTEF, or the equivalent of
five 3-unit sections. The load factor associated with a section varies depending on the unit value of the course. Thirty-five
students in a typical 3-unit weekly census course with a .20 load factor generates a WSCH/FTEF ratio of 525 (3 * 35 = 105 /
.20 = 525). Dividing the total WSCH from all sections by the total FTEF associated with all sections yields the College-wide
WSCH/FTEF ratio. The generally accepted Statewide WSCH/FTEF ratio target norm for California community colleges is 525.
30
QE I 1 0 – Pr ogr es s and I mpr o v em en t in th e Out co m es As s es s me nt Pr o ces s
The overall outcomes assessment target of 70% was achieved in the 2014 – 2015 year for all four
areas. All outcomes assessment rates exceed 95%.
Outcome Type
Courses
Programs
Student & Learning
Support Services
ILOs
Total
*As of June 15, 2015.
Ongoing Assessment Rate
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015*
58.9%
71.8%
95.9%
46.5%
68.2%
97.8%
Target
70.0%
70.0%
81.3%
100%
100%
70.0%
50.0%
64.8%
100%
73.0%
100%
96.3%
70.0%
70.0%
Table 10A: 2014-2015 Ongoing Assessment by Courses, Instructional Programs, Student and
Learning Support Services, and ILOs as of June 15, 2015.
Outcome Type
Courses
Instructional Programs
Student & Learning
Support Services
ILOs
Total
Ongoing
Assessment
327
44
341
45
Ongoing
Assessment Rate
95.9%
97.8%
16
16
100%
6
393
6
408
100%
96.3%
Denominator
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 7/16/2015
Notes: The Outcomes Assessment Rate refers to the percentage of courses, student services units, and administrative units
where the outcomes assessment process has been completed. The denominator refers to the total number of courses,
programs and ILOs. This number can change from year to year based on defined programs and current course offerings.
The initial outcomes assessment target was to ensure that outcomes assessment had been completed in 70% of all courses,
student service areas, and administrative areas by Spring 2014. Seventy percent was chosen as the target because in the
last five years an average of 375 courses was offered each year, which is approximately 68% of all active courses.
31
QE I 1 1 – Em pl oy e e Sa tis f ac ti on
In Fall 2010 60% of Crafton Employees agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied with six
satisfaction statements on the following topics: outcomes assessment, inclusiveness, planning and
decision-making, shared governance, resource allocation, and “my” work at Crafton. In Fall 2012
the percent of Crafton Employees who agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied
increased from 60% to 81%, an increase of 21%. The target of 70% was reached in Fall 2012 and
maintained in Fall 2014. However, in Fall 2014 the overall employee satisfaction decreased from
81% to 70%. Crafton employees were least satisfied with the resource allocation process (54%)
followed by the planning and decision-making processes (64%) at Crafton.
Employee Satisfaction
Employee
Satisfaction
Percent Agree
Fall 2010 (Baseline)
#
N
%
291
486
59.9
#
473
90%
Fall 2012
N
%
585
80.9
Fall 2014
N
%
501
70.3
#
352
Target
70.0%
81%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
Fall 2010 (Baseline)
Fall 2012
Term
Fall 2014 (Target)
Note: The percent of CHC employees satisfied with Crafton as determined by the Employee Satisfaction Survey including
aggregated responses from five satisfaction statements on the following six areas: outcomes assessment, inclusiveness,
planning and decision making, shared governance, resource allocation, and “my” work at Crafton.
Overall, I am satisfied with the
outcomes assessment process
at Crafton.
Overall, I am satisfied with the
level of inclusiveness at
Crafton.
Overall, planning and
decision-making processes at
Crafton are open and easy to
understand.
Overall, I am satisfied with
shared governance at
Crafton.
Overall, I am satisfied with the
resource allocation processes
at Crafton.
Overall, I am satisfied in my
work at Crafton.
Total
Strongly
Disagree
#
%
#
%
#
%
7
8.4
19
22.9
41
49.4
16
19.3
83
11
11.1
15
15.2
61
61.6
12
12.1
99
8
10.3
20
25.6
41
52.6
9
11.5
78
8
9.8
18
22.0
47
57.3
9
11.0
82
15
21.7
17
24.6
33
47.8
4
5.8
69
5
5.6
6
6.7
48
53.3
31
34.4
90
54
10.8
95
19.0
271
54.1
81
16.2
501
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
#
%
Total
Any questions regarding this report can be directed to the Office of Institutional Effectiveness, Research, and Planning at
(909) 389-3206 or you may send an email to kwurtz@craftonhills.edu: QEI_2015-16_Update.docx.
Progress on Crafton’s QEIs | 07/16/2015
Employee Satisfaction
Questions
32